How are the "Palin books" handling the ex-Gov's legal challenges? **UPDATE 2** HarperCollins email!

by: Celtic Diva

Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 14:37:30 PM AKST

I have been watching the emergence of the various books on Palin...from "journalists" who followed her campaign, to "writers" who don't understand the first thing about non-fiction and research, to Palin's own book.  My interest has been purely in determining how each will handle the information about the state Records Requests (FOIAs), the Personnel Board, Ethics Complaints and the APOC investigation.  The books I'm looking at are "Sarah from Alaska," released several weeks ago, "The Persecution of Sarah Palin" released this week and, because of a kind gentleman who gifted me with the pages, "Going Rogue," Palins own book not set to be released until Tuesday.

1)  APOC Investigation:  NOTHING.  Not ONE of these books even mentions that Alaska Public Offices Commission is investigating Sarah Palin's lack of sponsorship/Arctic Cat monetary information on Calendar Year 2008's Financial Disclosure form.  They also don't mention her non-compliance in revealing that information to them even though they have asked multiple times.

So, one of the most important and damning issues regarding Palin isn't mentioned in any book so far!  Hmmmmm...

2)  Ethics Complaints:  "Sarah from Alaska" covers it in just two pages...basically  including Arctic Cat...which is how my name got in the index (page 240!).

Here is PAGE 239 and PAGE 240.

As you can see, it was mostly rehashing Palin's bogus assertion of "frivolousness," and they were critical in their interpretation of their interview with Andree McLeod.  However the book did take her to task for her high-schoolish responses to each complaint's dismissal.  The authors also chastise Palin for her inappropriate response to me when the Arctic Cat complaint was filed.

Regarding Matthew Continetti's book...

I went to Barnes and Noble yesterday, grabbed his "persecution complex" book and a cup of coffee and sat down to speed read/skim.  

That's an hour-and-a-half of my life that I want back.

Continetti occasionally talks about having "lunch" with someone to get inforamtion, like AK Republican Party head Randy Ruedrich.  However, overall his book has a) no index b) no footnotes c) no endnotes d) no references and e) frequently uses sources like "a University professor" or "an Alaska insider." (Even his friends on Conservatives4Palin bust him for it.) When he reams Charley James for lousy sourcing last year, I laughed out loud.  When he talked about progressive blogs "linking" to James' article anyway, without mentioning those of us that took him to task, I just got angry.  

With all of that in mind, I was not surprised that basically one paragraph on one page (211) is dedicated to the entireity of Palin's legal challenges.  Continetti's presentation of the ethics complaints can be summed up in this factually challenged "quote" from the book, attributed to Legislator Gene Therriault:

"That was part of the Democratic plan to grind her up; use the ethics law as a blunt instrument to club the administration."

I guess the fact that of the 20+ ethics complaints filed, only 3 (that I know of) were filed by folks who are actual Democrats.  As Mr. Therriault knows quite well, Andree McLeod is strongly Republican, and I believe the rest were filed by non-partisan folks.

The thought of trying to get Andree McLeod to join a "Democratic Plan" just makes me laugh.

At least Continetti fixed his mistake regarding what my Artic Cat claim was about.  In his original article on the subject (that was riddled with inaccuracies), "Out of Alaska" in The Weekly Standard, he claimed that Palin was wearing an Arctic Cat "t-shirt."

I also found it interesting that he tied this line from Palin in with the Arctic Cat complaint:

"I got to the point where I said, 'May I just plead guilty?'?" she told me.

While Palin also attributes that line to the Arctic Cat complaint, parts of her "ethics" story is somewhat different in her own book, "Going Rogue."  The first two pages were posted early this morning which showed the direction her explanation was going...Andree McLeod-bashing.  We see much more of that nastiness in the next two pages:

HERE and HERE.

First off, Palin lied...there was never an official "complaint" about the dress code from McLeod and the target of the letter wasn't Palin.  Since her previous job with the State of Alaska Department of Labor was helping people prepare for the workforce, Andree McLeod was hyper-aware of what clothing was not appropriate for the government workplace...especially those folks who regularly deal with the public.  The letter was intended for Annette Kreitzer who dealt with those issues for the Office of the Governor.  When they decided misconstruing this was great way to attack McLeod, they passed this email to Alaska Ear gossipper Sheila Toomey.  The rest led to several records requests.

Considering all of the ethics complaints, I found it interesting that she spent the most amount of time lying (and bitching) about Arctic Cat.  

--She claimed that she'd been wearing "the logo and team colors for years."  Not while she was Governor and starting the Iron Dog race, she wasn't!  I went back three years and she never had a sports jacket on during that race.  

--She says the jacket "happened to be the team colors"...actually, it wasn't for 2009.  Team Davis/Palin's snow machines and outfits were orange and black while hers were yellow and green.  It's the big HUGE Arctic Cat logos all over the jacket and pants that made the difference.

A little worried about the eventual outcome of the APOC investigation, are we?

Of course, the other ethics issue she spends a little time on is the Alaska Fund Trust, that she "covers" on PAGE 374.

Wait a sec...did she just insinuate that the ethics complaint against her over the Alaska Fund Trust was the last straw in her decision to quit her job?  Where did I read that before?

So far, the authors have not bothered to achieve a working understanding of Palin's legal issues and the problems that still face her. I look forward to the more accurate books coming out from Geoffrey Dunn and Joe McGinness to see what they have to say about her legal troubles.

You can also look forward to future posts on the blog!

*******************************************UPDATE*************************************************

--As "EyeOnYou" pointed out in the comments (and I forgot to emphasize) Sheila Toomey insinuated via email that the way she got the Andree's memo was through a records request.  Nice that Palin cleared that up for us.

--Forgot to point out the rehashed lie that the ethics complaints were all dismissed.  There are still several complaints out there BESIDES the AK Fund Trust issue that should have dragged her in front of a hearing by now.

--The official Arctic Cat complaint cited her for vioation of AS 39.52.120 Misuse of Official Position.  You can read it HERE.

*******************************************UPDATE*************************************************

I found this in my email (and it seems that PALINGATES got one too):

I act as legal counsel to HarperCollins Publishers. I have just learned that you have posted substantial excerpts from our as yet unpublished book, Going Rogue, by Sarah Palin, on your web site. We view your posting of these excerpts as an infringement of our and Governor Palin's exclusive rights under copyright.  Accordingly, we demand that you remove them from your web site.

Christopher Goff
Senior Vice President & General Counsel
HarperCollins Publishers
10 East 53rd Street
New York, NY  10022
Voice:  212 207 7127
Fax:    212 207 7552

******************************************************

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this communication in error, please do not distribute and delete the original message. Please notify the sender by E-Mail at the address shown. Thank you for your compliance.

As you can see, I took the pages off the site.  However, the real story here is this:

--The Senior Vice President of Harper Collins,

--ON A SUNDAY,

--Sent emails to two specific blogs, one little blog based in Alaska, another based overseas,

--ignoring the multiple other outlets (many of which were larger or were "Palin-positive") that have pages or "extensive excerpts" from her book on the site.

They didn't do this on their own.  Palin  picked the ones she wanted them to email.  Perhaps not-so-coincidentally, my posts in question leaned towards fact-checking/lie-refuting than some of the others that were more for entertainment.

In other words, this was Palin-flattery!

I was once asked if, God forbid, Palin ever did become President, what would her first act be?  I stated that she would gather up the considerable resources available to a U.S. President and use them...to go after her "enemies" in Alaska and the media.  

I rest my case.

And in light of all this, the question I have for Mr. Goss and HarperCollins: HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PALIN'S BITCH?

Undisclosed--What Palin's Financial Disclosure left out--Pt. 2 Arctic Cat & Iron Dog sponsors

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 18:58:09 PM AKDT

Sarah Palin filed her final POFD (Public Officer  Financial Disclosure) on time according to APOC (Alaska Public Offices  Commission) rules.

However, the document was less than thorough.

In Part One, we talked about how Palin failed to disclose a trust worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.  In Part Two, we'll look at the evidence that proves Sarah Palin is being less-than-truthful about Arctic Cat and Todd's other Iron Dog sponsors.  

The whole "Arctic Cat" issue began with:

--the ethics complaint I filed against Sarah Palin with the Personnel Board,
--its subsequent dismissal and
--my attempt at an appeal.

This all led to a simple question asked by Andree McLeod during public testimony at an APOC meeting:

You (Sarah Palin) have reported a "discount on snow machines" by Arctic Cat for Todd Palin. Was this discount exercised during calendar year 2008 and what was the amount of it?

Ms. McLeod was referring to Palin's Financial Disclosure for calendar year 2008.  The only thing disclosed as coming from the Arctic Cat sponsorship was a "50% discount" on a snowmachine and no actual monetary figure was included.  This violates APOC's requirement that anything over $1,000.00 needs to include the value if it was higher than $1,000.00.

As a result, APOC sent that question in the form of a "letter of inquiry" to Sarah Palin and received a response back claiming the amount of the snowmachine discount was "50% of the factory cost" and was therefore a "trade secret."

APOC rejected that claim and gave Palin a deadline to report the information.

Palin/Van Flein responded, now claiming ignorance as to the details of the contract, even though some of the details were revealed in the previous letter and even more of the contract details were shared in this one.  For example:

-The racers receive their Arctic wear for free while for others (through them) it was 50% discount and,

-Todd Palin receives a "sponsorship fee."

The APOC Staff made a recommendation, somehow coming to the conclusion that Palin had "revealed enough."

The Commission rather soundly rejected the staff recommendation during their September meeting and instead tasked them with finding out even more information from the Palins, including the amount of the "sponsorship fee" described in the last letter from Van Flein/Palin to the APOC.

This is where the investigation of last year's Financial Disclosure form stands at this moment.  

This brings us back to Monday's "Final" Financial Disclosure.

Regarding the Iron Dog and sponsorship benefits for the Palins--according to the paperwork, the only mention of ANYTHING Iron Dog (other than listing Todd's "winnings" as $3,500.00) is identifying Arctic Cat as a sponsor.  The only monetary value: "Arctic Cat discount on snowmachines is $3,252.00". So, the Palin's are claiming that the extent of Arctic Cat sponsorship value to Todd Palin is $3,252.

That's an interesting figure for a few reasons:

1)  On Palin's Financial Disclosure for calendar year 2007, she lists the total value of the Arctic Cat sponsorship as $7,500.00.  That was the year that Davis/Palin won the Iron Dog and the rewards for that win should have been reaped during the 2008 race...the year that Palin failed to attach ANY monetary value to the Arctic Cat sponsorship.  2008 was also the year that Sarah was the Republican VP candidate.  The Palins are asking us to believe that the value of the Arctic Cat sponsorship has GONE DOWN by over $4,000.00 AFTER their latest win and the former-Gov's new national stature?

2)  They have still dodged listing that pesky "sponsorship fee" that already has them under investigation for last year's POFD.  During the September APOC meeting, the other Commissioners were enlightened by Commissioner Frederick, a lawyer from Wasilla who also happens to be a musher savvy about sponsorships:

When discussion ensued, Commissioner Frederick asked a list of salient questions based on the the most recent letter:

--The second paragraph states that:  "In addition, the company pays a sponsorship fee and gives Team Arctic Wear to the Racing Team."  Frederick explained that she had not really noticed that line before and in the discussion, proceeded to explain that sponsorship fees as high as $40,000 and $50,000 are not unheard of, especially considering the winning record and the high-profile of the Davis/Palin team.  When asked if Palin/Van Flein had ever revealed that amount, Jerry Anderson admitted they had not.

I believe that this non-disclosure may turn out to be by far the most significant.

3)  As low-ball as the disclosed Arctic Cat figure may be, it is still higher than the $1,000.00 requirement for APOC disclosure.  Remember, Palin did not disclose a monetary figure for Arctic Cat for Calendar Year 2008, giving the impression that their monetary value was under $1,000.00.  In other words, we would have to believe that the snowmachine Todd Palin used last year in 2008, the year after his Iron Dog win, would have been much lower quality than the one they used in 2009.  

4)  The Palin's are attempting to pass-off their sponsorship discounts as the actual "value" of the item.  This is not correct.  In the instructions on filling out the POFD form, Section #6 is for listing "other income" and Section #7 is for "gifts."  The instructions for "other income" state:  "Report the source and amount of any other income over $1,000 not reported elsewhere."  However, the section on "gifts" states:  "Type, source & value of gifts worth over $250. Include multiple gifts from one source if they exceed $250."

Sponsorship actually combines the two.  A sponsorship deal includes a substantially discounted price for merchandise in exchange for the high-profile advertising of the successful race team. The actual retail value of the mechandise is THE INCOME BEING EXCHANGED.  In other words, they should be listing the "value" of the snowmachine as income, not the 50% they didn't have to pay after the price was already lowered TO THE FACTORY COST per the contract (that Sarah has never seen)!

The extremely low monetary value listed for the Arctic Cat sponsorship AND the absence of any other sponsorship names defies logic in comparison to the past two POFD's and for the other reasons listed above.  It also flies in the face of all evidence pointing to Davis/Palin having recently hit sponsorship gold...or maybe platinum according to their sponsorship levels on their website. Per Sports Illustrated:

Some Iron Doggers have spent upwards of $30,000 to finance a once-in-a-lifetime run into the wild heart of Alaska. Tapping their credit cards, they've shelled out $10,000 each for a 2009 snow machine, $10,000 more for an identical training sled, $2,500 for the race entry fee and a few thousand more for trailing airplane support. Palin and Davis, in contrast, have spent almost nothing. They are prodigiously sponsored, with their names monogrammed in script on their matching Arctic Cat jackets. (Palin even has the names of his five kids and his wife, SARAH, THE GOV, appliquéd on his snow machine hood.) They give inspirational speeches at trade shows. They are both adored and reviled. They are the New York Yankees of snow machining.

That one paragraph says so much, but I'd like to call your attention to the comment about the training sled.  Again, per Sports Illustrated:

Behold Todd Palin's snow machine, dangling from a truck's winch in the icy gray murk of an Alaskan winter morning. The machine is gleaming, new, scarcely ridden.

Scarcely ridden...which would indicate he either a) doesn't train much or b) he has another machine to train on.  We know the former isn't true, per People:

During each of the past 14 years, Todd has spent nearly two months training up to five hours a day for the 2,000-mile Iron Dog marathon. "He wouldn't do it if the family wasn't behind him," says Davis.

...and...

"Todd has been training a couple of hundred miles a day to get ready," Todd's racing partner, Scott Davis, a seven-time winner of the Iron Dog told PEOPLE. "We're ready."

Additionally, we have this picture from the Davis-Palin website. In a photo gallery titled "2009" I found this picture of these three identical Arctic Cat snowmachines (the ones they used during the Iron Dog 2009) at Scott Davis's place in Soldotna.

That's two for the race and one...errrr...extra?  I suspect there are four but the fourth one is not in the picture. Luckily, Men's Journal can explain it to us:

Davis owns a major construction company with lucrative state contracts, and this building - a kind of gearhead paradise, Alaska Rich Guy Version - is the reward, with a 40-foot mobile home parked along one wall, a shiny four-wheel ATV, and room for Davis's dozen snowmobiles, or, as the locals call them, "snowmachines." Four new ones - identical Arctic Cat F6s - take up the main work area, two for Davis, a seven-time Iron Dog winner himself, and two for Palin.

Did anyone see a "training sled" listed on the POFD?

Other benefits caught by the media:

Here is this winch and a really nice trailer, per Sports Illustrated:

And then there's the Arctic Cat mechanic, also per Sports Illustrated:

And then, a few hours later, Alaska's First Couple flies home to Wasilla, to resume normal life. Todd goes to his daughter Willow's basketball game. He tinkers with the boiler down in the basement, changes a water filter, and then gets together with Calvin Nolan, the Arctic Cat mechanic, to nail down what, exactly, went wrong.

There is also nothing mentioned on the POFD about transportation to speaking engagements or even the air and ground support costs on the Iron Dog Trail...hmmmm...

Remember..."Palin and Davis, in contrast, have spent almost nothing.  They are prodigiously sponsored..."

And while we've been rightly questioning the true extent of the Arctic Cat sponsorship, let's not neglect to mention that Davis/Palin has MANY sponsors who reach the Silver, Gold or Platinum levels on their website.  Of course,  all financial information is devoid from the site.  However you can tell who is at least at the "Silver" level by whose logo is actually at the top of the site.

Esquire Magazine, however, may have provided us with another sponsorship clue during their description of Davis/Palin getting the sleds ready for the 2009 race:

They've fitted them with additional gas tanks, sawed off pounds of extraneous metal and plastic, swapped in new Öhlins shocks, and made hundreds of other tiny tweaks and adjustments. The Öhlins cost about $2,500 a set, but they're worth it. You do this long enough and you learn where to scrimp and where to splurge.

I doubt there was any serious "splurging" going on since, if you check their website, Ohlins is at least a Silver sponsor.  More interestingly, even if their sponsorship agreement is the same as Arctic Cat, 50% off, that still puts those shocks OVER THE $1,000.00 REQUIREMENT TO DISCLOSE!  Where are they on the POFD form?  How many of the rest of those Silver, Gold and Platinum sponsors should be listed in the disclosure?

I think these two posts have made it extremely clear that what Sarah Palin tries to pass off as "disclosure" is simply a slap in the face to Alaskans.  She may have attempted to follow the laws before her VP Candidacy but shows no sign of it anymore.  She could potentially believe that no one can/will hold her accountable or maybe she just doesn't care as she has no intention of paying any fines even if they were to be levied against her.

On either count, I guess we'll have to see.

 

"We took her at her word"--APOC rejects staff recommendation regarding Palin

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 02:31:26 AM AKDT

I made it to the APOC Meeting Thursday, in spite of the fact that my daughter is battling the flu (every time the Ibuprofen wears off, her fever shoots up again...bad cough...sore throat...the works).  She said she felt OK if I left her for about an hour.  So, I went to:

1) See whether or not the Commission would accept the Staff Recommendation saying that Sarah Palin had (finally) "revealed enough" in regards to her Public Office Financial Disclosure (POFD)...i.e. gifts and Arctic Cat

2) Give public testimony (I'll cover that when I get the CDs tomorrow.  Andree McLeod made good points about the AK Fund Trust and why APOC should be involved).

First off, there just couldn't be two meetings as night-and-day as the Personnel Board vs. the Alaska Public Offices Commission.  It was professionally run from beginning to end.

Secondly, there was some very obvious "common sense" at work among the Commissioners and it was bipartisan in nature.  As a matter-of-fact, much of the serious questioning came from Republican member Kathleen Frederick, a lawyer from Wasilla.  I think her career as a lawyer was much more important in this instance than the designation as "Republican" or "from Wasilla."  Also, she is a musher and is well-acquainted with the snow machining community.  She was the one who imparted knowledge to the Commission regarding the nature and value of sponsorships, the cost of snow machine equipment, etc...

APOC staff member Jerry Anderson presented the Staff Recommendation to the Commission and took everyone through the history:

When APOC first sent a letter questioning Palin's gift disclosure and Arctic Cat sponsorship disclosure;

Palin's response, claiming it's a "trade secret";

APOC rejecting the "trade secret" claim;

APOC Staff's Recommendation that Palin has "revealed enough."

After the presentation, Commission Chair Elizabeth Hickerson started the questioning by pointing out an "inconsistency" between the letter requesting the "trade secret" status, which stated:

and the most recent letter from Thomas Van Flein which claimed that:

"Governor Palin has no direct contact or communication with Arctic Cat.  She has not read, and under the terms of the contract, is not entitled to read, the specific sponsorship provisions but she is generally aware that Todd Palin is entitled to the discounts and fee as part of being a sponsored team."

As the Chair pointed out, the first letter gave much more than "general" information.  

When discussion ensued, Commisioner Frederick asked a list of salient questions based on the the most recent letter:

--The second paragraph states that:  "In addition, the company pays a sponsorship fee and gives Team Arctic Wear to the Racing Team."  Frederick explained that she had not really noticed that line before and in the discussion, proceeded to explain that sponsorship fees as high as $40,000 and $50,000 are not unheard of, especially considering the winning record and the high-profile of the Davis/Palin team.  When asked if Palin/Van Flein had ever revealed that amount, Jerry Anderson admitted they had not.

(By this point, he had been joined at the table by a representative from the AG's office, Tom Dosik, who had been a part of a meeting with Van Flein.)

--Frederick asked, based on the 50% discount Todd Palin receives on "merchandise":

a) What equipment was part of that discount?
b) How many snomachines were included in that discount?
c) Had Palin/Van Flein revealed the dollar value of that equipment/discount?

In discussion, she explained that snowmachines of that caliber are worth approximately $15,000, which raised some eyebrows among the other Commissioners, and that didn't count the expense of the other merchandise.

Again, Anderson and Dosik admitted that information had not been revealed.

-- Palin claims the confidentiality clause of the contract prohibits her from knowing the information.  Frederick stated that would be very unusual, that most contracts of this nature allow the immediate family to share in the information.  Frederick asked if anyone had requested a redacted copy of the contract so that they could see that confidentiality clause.

It appeared that there was hesitation on the part of Anderson and Dosik.  Hickerson rephrased the question several times.  She asked them how they could be sure as to the nature of the confidentiality agreement.  The incredulous, (literally) forehead-slapping moment for me was when Tom Dosick from the AG's office stated:

"We took her at her word."

(That so perfectly sums-up my experience with the Attorney General's Office as well as the Personnel Board...there is no investigation, they simply "take her at her word.")

By that point, the Commissioner who had, rather hesitantly it seemed, seconded the motion to accept this report (probably so that discussion could occur) withdrew her second.  The motion died and the recommendation was rejected.

The Commission has now tasked the APOC Staff with three new duties:

1) They are to acquire information on the what merchandise was discounted to the Palins and at what monetary value.

2) They are to review a redacted version of the contract so they can examine the confidentiality agreement.

3) They are to find out the amount of the sponsorship fee.

At the end of the meeting, Hickerson asked the staff when Palin's final POFD is due into the office and received the answer:  October 26th.  This is the Financial Disclosure that covers this last Iron Dog...the one where the "Davis/Palin team was prodigiously sponsored."

This is SO not over.

APOC Meeting begins today and will cover far-reaching issues of disclosure

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 12:51:06 PM AKDT

Today, they are dealing with an interesting complaint from the Alaska Democratic Party from finance issues leading up to the last election-- October of 2008:

Under state law, an independent expenditure is only possible if there is no coordination between the person or group making the expenditure and the candidate or his campaign. The Democrats are filing a complaint with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, asking the commission to investigate how it happens that the party is attacking Crawford on the same point Brokaw has been attacking on, without coordinating the attack.

In August, Democratic Party officials asked the APOC whether a political party could legally make an independent expenditure on behalf of a candidate. APOC's Chris Ellingson told Alaska Democratic Party spokeswoman Kay Brown that it would be "hard for a party to do it and pass a straight-face test." She advised that any party entity doing an IE would have be "completely uninvolved" with the candidate and the candidate's campaign, and that there could be no contact about the campaign with the candidate, manager, or other agent of the candidate in order to legally do an independent expenditure.

Based on that advice, the Alaska Democratic party decided not to make independent expenditures.

"We wanted to stay in the center of the ethical playing field," Doogan said.

Ruedrich and the Republicans, who received the same advice from Ellingson, apparently decided differently.

This issue is scheduled to take the entire day, as the Republican Party is calling a myriad of witnesses...probably because this is a practice they want to continue.

The phrase "ethically bankrupt" comes to mind.

While I'll stop by today to discover if there's been a decision regarding the AK Dems complaint, the day I'm attending the meeting is tomorrow:

HEARING AGENDA
Thursday, September 24, 2009

4:00 - 4:30 Sarah Palin POFD Staff Recommendation [6]Presented by Jerry D. Anderson, APOC Staff

4:30 - 5:00 Public Comment Period

While it doesn't say the words "gifts" or "Arctic Cat," those are the disclosures for which the Staff has made recommendations regarding her 2008 Public Offices Financial Disclosure (POFD):

APOC and Palin went back and forth this summer over just what had to be disclosed. Palin didn't want to reveal details of the Arctic Cat sponsorship, saying it was proprietary information, and also argued that gifts were not "received" until they were opened.

APOC disagreed with her on both those points and Palin filed a new disclosure last month, listing more gifts and providing some information in the disclosure about Todd Palin's Arctic Cat sponsorship, while pleading ignorance of specifics.

Palin's lawyer, Tom Van Flein, told APOC that Palin "has not read the contract and does not know the specific terms of the contract."

"She has a general awareness that the sponsorship contract provides for discounts...Scott Davis is sponsored by Arctic Cat and has been for 15 years. As a sponsored team he, and his crew (which includes Todd Palin), can obtain Arctic Cat merchandise for 50% off of retail. In addition, the company pays a sponsorship fee and gives Team Arctic Wear to the Racing Team," Van Flein wrote.

APOC staff responded in Sept. 2 memo that Palin's response "appears to be appropriate...given the level of knowledge and disclosure of facts by this filer."

The staff will present their recommendation to the Commissioners tomorrow, immediately before the public comments period. I called the APOC staff and they do not know if the Commissioners will deliberate and make a decision before the public comments or not.

1) No one as of yet has made a complaint regarding specific gifts missing from Palin's 2008 gift disclosure.  I'm not sure if they will be able to act on anything unless they have specific evidence of missing gifts.

2) Regarding Arctic Cat...following the Staff Recommendation sets a dangerous precedent regarding disclosure for ALL public officials in Alaska.  A spouse of ANY public official could simply choose NOT to tell that official about their income (wink, wink) yet still use that income for the benefit of the family, including that public official.  

3) Business could "pay" these spouses in "discounts" to avoid disclosure.

4) Even if these "discounts" from Arctic Cat do not qualify as "income," they most certainly qualify as "gifts" which directly benefit Sarah Palin.  While "other income" must be reported if it is over $1,000 (according to POFD instructions), gifts over $250.00 must be reported...this includes the amount.

5) Sarah Palin has NOT answered any direct questions about the Arctic Cat income, though she DID report it in 2007...that means she consciously witheld it.  Sarah Palin did not provide the sponsorship amounts from ANY Iron Dog sponsor on her 2008 POFD.

Sarah Palin in NO WAY has satisfied the questions about the Arctic Cat sponsorship.  IN NO WAY has Sarah Palin followed the disclosure laws regarding the Arctic Cat sponsorship per APOC's POFD form instructions.

Public Comments are accepted in written form as well as verbally in front of the Commissioners.

Teleconference number: 1-800-315-6338, Code 4176

EMAIL: apoc@alaska.gov
 

A wrap-up already? It's a heavy and it's only Tuesday!**UPDATE2**Palin memo to APOC

by: Celtic Diva

Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:05:34 AM AKDT

The latest cover of The Progressive Magazine by Zina Saunders

**********************************************UPDATE**********************************************

9:50 AM--KTVA Channel 11 will have the memo up on their site within the hour. (**UPDATE2**HERE is the memo)

The most important information to note:  She provides NO MONETARY FIGURE for the Arctic Cat discount/income.  She didn't answer the question which makes her non-compliant.

Is anyone shocked?

(**UPDATE 2** She didn't bother to give a good-faith estimate of the value of many of the items, which she's supposed to do.  She's just so beyond caring about that pesky legal stuff.)

**************************************************************************************************

I spoke to the folks at Alaska Public Offices Commission about 20 minutes before they closed for the day (4:40) and they informed me that they had NOT received anything from Palin or Van Flein regarding Arctic Cat or the gifts.  (Background found HERE)  However, they also stated that anything from them would still be considered "timely" if it was received by midnight August 17th (about an hour ago).  I'll find out in the morning if they made the deadline.

ANCHORAGE MAYOR DAN SULLIVAN VETOES THE LGBT ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE

His "media statement" claims that:  

My review shows that there is clearly a lack of quantifiable evidence necessitating this ordinance. My review also shows that the vast majority of those who communicated their position on the ordinance are in opposition.

Me and Jerry Prevo

Wow...considering their were literally hundreds of people testifying (including me) regarding abuse or discrimination suffered as the result of a perception of "gayness," I sort of think someone needs to be murdered in front of him for the Mayor to "get it."

There was a spur-of-the-moment protest that happened at City Hall where, according to KTVA, "hundreds" showed up. Mel Green has wonderful coverage of the protest at her blog "Henkimaa" including a photo slide-show.

LIKE A BAD DREAM, THE AK DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME PUTS EVEN BIGGER SCREWS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE YUKON.

Emmonak singers courtesy of Dennis Zaki

We thought the State couldn't, wouldn't, didn't DARE make the plight of Rural Alaskans, specifically those who dwell along the Yukon, any worse, what with Not allowing them to commercial fish kings while simultaneously limiting their subsistence king fishing.  Even the Daily Newsminer, when informing us of the low chum salmon numbers, couldn't envision a limit to subsistence chum fishing:

A poor fall chum will only compound existing problems for subsistence fishermen on the middle and upper Yukon River who didn't catch enough kings this year because of restrictions placed on fishermen in an attempt to get more king salmon to their Canadian spawning grounds...

...and...

At this point, managers don't think restrictions on subsistence fishing will be necessary, Bue said. Biologists are fairly confident the run will meet the minimum escapement goal of 300,000 fish without cutting fishing time, he said.

Restrictions on subsistence fishing would create "civil unrest" on the upper Yukon, Bassich said, given that managers, speculating that this year's fall chum run would be a decent one, allowed commercial fishermen on the lower Yukon to catch about 23,000 fall chums before pulling the plug on commercial fishing.

That was August 16th.  What a difference a day makes:

It looks like industry-friendly Denby Lloyd is using a tried-and-true method of escaping responsibility...turning people facing a cold hungry winter against each other by limiting subsistence fishing in some regions and not others.

Of course, it doesn't help when a guy talks to the paper complaining because HE needs to catch 3000 chum salmon...FOR HIS DOGS:

Tanana fisherman Charlie Campbell, who is hoping to catch 3,000 fall chums to feed his 28 sled dogs this winter, agreed. State managers were trying to make up for closing commercial fishing for king salmon in the lower Yukon earlier this summer by allowing commercial fishermen on the lower Yukon to harvest fall chums when they shouldn't have, he said.

"The department felt like they had to give them something," Campbell contended. "That's OK if there's enough fish but this is not looking like something where someone should have granted commercial openings and seven days a week fishing.

FOR THOSE WHO DON'T THINK IT'S ABOUT RACISM...DISGUSTING PICTURE HITS THE STREETS

My good friend, radio guru Cary Carrigan called me this morning on his way to my house.  He was in a hurry, but he had to drop something off; he wanted to show me what he ripped from a light pole in downtown Anchorage.  It was the disgusting picture shown above that the wingnut blogs are encouraging people to distribute.  This one was on heavy, expensive paper that smelled like high-quality ink or toner.

Cary said, "Not in my town" and vowed to rip down every one he saw, even if it was in front of the person who was putting them up.  I completely agree...I have a cane and I'm not afraid to use it.

The picture was a little crunched up but I had planned to photograph it so you could see the original one.  However, I didn't count on my 11-year-old's reaction.  She grabbed it, crunched it up into a little ball and tried to rip it apart.
When I chastised her because I had planned to use it, she blew her stack and ran to her room, only to come back shortly afterwards, sobbing and throwing herself into my arms.  

I know she was there with me in Denver but I am constantly amazed by how she feels so personally connected to President Obama and his family.  Much of Obama's childhood story is similar...she was raised alone by her white mama for the first three years of her life and abandoned by her black bio-dad.  But it's more than that...she feels like he's HER President and she takes nasty attacks against him personally.

I don't know if I can even curtail that.  

I was told by her teachers at school that she openly and vigorously fought for Obama against her few classmates that weren't already on-board.  She's already waded into dangerous territory in other areas as well...she told a girl who was calling women who got abortions "murderers" that there were women out there (like her mama) who could die if they got pregnant.

I'd be lying if I didn't say that, while her openness scares me at times, I'm proud as hell of her.

So I had to pull an image from the web to show you the poster that was found downtown.  I know that my daughter and I will be on the lookout for those posters and will yank them down at every opportunity.  

I'd also like to remind those folks posting them of the simple truth that motivates their Obama-hatred...my daughter's generation of brown kids is the one that will soon outnumber the white folks.  How you want to be treated by that generation is entirely up to you.

APOC deadline today for Palin's Arctic Cat and gift disclosures--remember her "bribes?"

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:06:22 AM AKDT

Welcome to Monday, August 17th!

Sarah Palin has until midnight to disclose all of this information...and let's remember, it was ORIGINALLY DUE ON MARCH 16TH...when EVERY OTHER ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICIAL who was required to do so turned in their Financial Disclosure form!  She's been given a serious five-month grace-period!

We'll see if she complies today.

While I'll discuss more about the Arctic Cat issue tomorrow when we know what Palin's response will be, there is quite a bit to understand about Palin's biggest problem...her inability to report gifts properly both under the Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) rules as well as the APOC rules.

Here is the video of Palin speaking at the Right-to-Life dinner in Indiana, where she talks facetiously about being "bribed" to go there (4:29):

She discusses the gifts they give her over time, the fact that they were sent to her office (this was a non-state-sanctioned event), that they were enjoyed by staff, press, etc...  When some were uncomfortable with the gifts issue being treated so casually and even questioned the potential ethics ramifications, Palin's followers went in full attack mode, accusing the questioners' motives, genetic heritage, etc...

However, through an investigation of Palin's gifts, it may be that those questions were not so far off base after all:

Here is the report of the infamous chocolates.  The "NO" is in response to the query "Is it necessary to report this to APOC."  Because this individual item is only $40.00, that would be true...unless more items were sent and depending on the CUMULATIVE cost remaining under $250.00.

So here's the second gift...

...also from Vanderburgh County Right-to-Life

And the third:

Cumulative $90.00, still nothing outrageous.

Here's the forth and fifth...not mentioned in the speech...cumulative is up to $130.00...still safe:

Here's where we start to get serious and where Sarah Palin is terribly fond of pushing the envelope.  These gifts are not marked as coming specifically from Vandenburgh Right to Life:

However, Palin mentions the hockey stick as being part of the "bribes." The others she didn't mention are clearly meant to encourage her to make the trip, either from business owners who were members of Vandenburgh Right-to-Life, would be attending the dinner or were purchased by other members.  This is where an APOC Complaint would be handy to ask the legitimate question, are these gifts now reportable to APOC because of their obviou link and now exceed the $250.00 cutoff?  (We're up to $340.00 to be exact.)

But, we're not even done.  Here's another box of chocolates from Evansville...this time from the owner of the chocolate shop!

Do you think the Libs family are members of Vandenburgh Right to Life?

Same for the Dunn family:

And what about the Zeidlers of "Zeidler's Flowers" who gave then-Governor Palin a $129.00 Orchid?

Yet, Sarah Palin simply writes "NO" when the total price tag of the Evansville gifts is $548.09!!!  Hell, the Corrupt Bastards (embarassingly) were busted by the Feds when being "bribed" by similar amounts!

We'll see if she reports these to APOC by midnight tonight.

Of course, it isn't just the amount that is a challenge for her, it's reporting them in a timely manner per the EBEA:

Note the art piece was given to Palin in September of 2008.  She didn't actually report it and get the form signed by the AG UNTIL MARCH 2009!  Time-frame gifts are supposed to be reported within:  30 days.

And these are only the gifts that she's actually reported.  We haven't even talked about the ones that she hasn't:

On Monday, July 20, 2009, I (along with most local media and bloggers) received a press release regarding another ethics complaint filed with the Attorney General's office by Anchorage resident and registered Republican Andrée McLeod.  The charges are that "Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act for failure to submit completed and signed gift disclosure forms claiming gifts received by her and her family."

The press release continued:

"Governor Palin intentionally and willfully broke the Ethics Act by not claiming gifts timely, if at all," McLeod said.

The Ethics Act is exceedingly and simply clear in that officials MUST claim gifts within 30 days of receipt. Yet, Sarah Palin states in a June 15th letter, "There are boxes of unopened mail at this point, even mail that was delivered in 2008.  Thus, as initially disclosed, 'we continue to open boxes' and we consider any parcel "received" at the time it is opened."

"The governor's statement sets off alarms. Alaskans expect their public officials to follow the rules of law; especially the ones that are intended to keep them honest," McLeod said.  "Instead this woman admits to having no intention of complying with our laws."  

McLeod continues, "What possible reason is there for Palin to keep all these gifts a secret for so long? Why has she not disclosed them by the book now before quitting? "

This Ethics Complaint is still outstanding and I await its outcome.  As for the extent of Palin's cooperation with APOC, we'll know in a few hours.

Palin & emails, Arctic Cat, gifts, AK Fund Trust...how many "dropping shoes" does one person need?

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:27:00 PM AKDT

In a piece by Justin Miller in "The Atlantic" yesterday titled "The Shoe that didn't Drop," Miller claims that there is no "scandal" that has influenced Palin to leave office:

The closest Palin is being examined is by an ethics investigator in Alaska who said it is probable she improperly used her position as a public official to collect donations for a private legal defense fund. However, the investigator suggests Palin simply not take money from the fund, and instead appeal to the state to handle these legal matters.

First off, Shannyn Moore and everyone else who talked about possible attention from the Feds NEVER SAID THE WORD FBI...they said F-E-D-E-R-A-L.  So, when the FBI did it's Van Flein-influenced-denial of any investigation into Palin, that was a clever political ADD distraction.  It worked, enhancing my theory that most journalists have ADD.

Last I checked, the IRS is a federal agency and I can attest to the number of emails I have received from folks telling me they reported the Palins to the IRS.  Having been a Fed for 15 years, I can PROMISE you that those emails will NOT be ignored...mainly because it's no skin off their nose to check into the allegations.

Secondly, the bit about the "closest" Palin has been examined is by the ethics investigator who found that "it is probable she improperly used her position as a public official"...as if it's no big deal.

Huh?  Misusing your position as a public official for financial gain is no big deal?  Where does this guy come from?

As a little explanation to Mr. Miller, and an update to everyone else, allow me to point out some information from the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) I pointed out last week.

1)  The portion that Mr. Miller summarizes from Tom Daniel's report, that "Palin simply not take money from the fund, and instead appeal to the state to handle these legal matters", was the remedy offered to Palin by Investigator Daniel.  As we knew when this report became public, Palin and Van Flein had ignored the report for a week.  Since the AK Fund Trust website is still up and accepting donations, we can safely assume that they have yet to accept that remedy.  Since that remedy was offered on July 14th and today is August 5th, I would think the time for acceptance has passed, so:

2)  Because, per the EBEA, "the subject of a complaint failed to comply with a recommendation for corrective or preventive action," Investigator Daniel SHOULD have sent/be sending a formal copy of the accusations to the Palins, which lays out the specific violation.  We should know as soon as this happens because EVERYTHING FROM THAT POINT FORWARD BECOMES PUBLIC INFORMATION.  

3) There are three possible replies to the formal accusation letter that Palin can make:

- Denial of the violation:  This then results in a hearing which involves a hearing officer (judge) and a formal procedure.  The only way for Palin to be able to claim "no wrongdoing" is if the issue is completely dismissed after this process.  Because she ignored the remedy, that isn't very likely.

- Acceptance of the violation:  Palin's case would then automatically be sent to the Personnel Board for the penalty phase.

- Palin "does not respond in a timely manner" (or ignores the charges):  "The allegations are considered admitted."  This means they automatically go to the Personnel Board for the penalty phase.  I find this scenario to be the most likely because in my experience with the Palins, they have a difficult time with deadlines.

Unless the unlikely occurs and the violation is dismissed after a full, public hearing, Palin has lost her "meme" that "she has not been found to have committed any wrongdoing."  Somehow, I don't find any of this to be a "minor" issue.

It's also not the only thing nipping at Palin's heels:

Arctic Cat

I spoke last week with Holly Hill, Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission.  I was double checking that she had received all of the documents I had sent the week before.  I asked if the response to Van Flein would soon be forthcoming regarding their claim that their benefits from Arctic Cat qualify as a "trade secret."  I mentioned how concerned I was about how this might effect attempts at income secrecy from other public officials.  Ms. Hill assured me that there were very many officials who had expressed concern about this upcoming decision as well.  She also stated that it probably wouldn't be out until the next meeting.

Interestingly enough, it came out early and a big "thank you" to Sean Cockerham and Lisa Demer for covering it:

In one lingering issue, the Alaska Public Offices Commission has refused Palin's request to keep secret the discounts that come from her husband's Arctic Cat sponsorship.

and...

APOC is giving Palin until Aug. 17 to make public "information related to the dollar amount of the discounts from Arctic Cat," as well as any gifts received in 2008 that she has not reported, said Holly Hill, the agency's director. Hill found that the state law Palin cited in arguing for an exemption from the Arctic Cat disclosure "only protects information submitted under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, and does not apply in this matter."

Personnel Board:  I turned comments into the Personnel Board refuting the Arctic Cat dismissal and have been watching and waiting for their next meeting.  That's most likely when they will have a "hearing" on them.

Emails:

First, to start out with the "most asked" issue...I have heard nothing more from Linda Perez on the emails.  My target date to start bugging them about it is August 24th although they have until September (the deadline).  I am very, very eager to see what I'll get and I'll pursue this until the bitter end.

Next, Sean and Lisa covered Andree McLeod's email cases very well:

A judge on Tuesday heard arguments in a lawsuit by Anchorage activist Andree McLeod, who is seeking to ban the practice and is arguing it could hide information the public has a fundamental right to see.

and (emphasis mine)...

"This is not something between Andree McLeod and former Gov. Palin. This is a very serious public policy issue," McLeod's lawyer, Don Mitchell, told the judge Tuesday.

The heart of the case is whether private e-mails obstruct the public's right to public information, Mitchell said.

Mike Mitchell, arguing for the state, said many e-mails aren't public records anyway because they are too trivial. McLeod is trying to expand the definition of a public record, and not just for the governor's office, he said.

What do you mean "too trivial?"  Who makes the decision on what's trivial and what isn't?  Emails about emails could be considered "trivial" except, in this case, they are not.  According to every Federal Law I understand, all information produced in government service is fair game.

Gifts

I have believed all along that these will be the bane of her existence.  

APOC also said Palin needs to disclose all the gifts she received last year, rejecting her interpretation that she doesn't need to until after she gets around to actually opening the gifts.

Palin has told APOC "there are boxes of unopened mail at this point, even mail that was delivered in 2008."

Andree has an excellent pending ethics complaint regarding the gifts and I believe Palin will encounter significant trouble with APOC regarding them as well.  I have a much more thorough post started on the gifts issue that I'll put out this week.

As you can see, it's a veritable rainstorm of shoes in the Palin camp these days.  It would be foolish to dismiss them offhand just because they are not federal indictments.  As we've seen in Alaska, federal indictments aren't always very successful.

Like I said, Arctic Cat isn't over...

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 01:09:19 AM AKDT

I knew when I got up this morning that today was going to be one busy day.  I had to finish my "comments" and turn them in to the Personnel Board...the comments that are in response to the summary report by Investigator Thomas Daniel which dismissed the Arctic Cat Complaint for "no probable cause."  I knew I had to finish them early in the afternoon because I had to write my public testimony for the Alaska Public Offices Commission meeting held today and tomorrow.

I felt especially moved to give public testimony because I received the following in my email the night before.  It is a response from the Governor (OK, really from Van Flein) to the letter of inquiry sent by APOC back in March:

First...let's talk about the secrecy regarding this entire Arctic Cat process...stuff I didn't want to discuss until after I sent off my response to the Personnel Board.

The Investigator on the Arctic Cat complaint, Mr. Thomas Daniel, asked Gov. Palin nine questions and was permitted (by Van Flein...those Legal Defense Fund dollars at work) to look at the Arctic Cat Contract as long as he "kept it confidential."  Once Palin "waived her confidentiality" and they released the report, I asked for all of that information SINCE IT WAS WHAT HE BASED HIS DECISION UPON.

Mr. Daniel states that he is getting an Attorney General opinion because he believes that they need to...get this...keep that information "confidential" because it is the "product of attorneys."

So, what he seems to be saying is that his dealings with Mr. Van Flein are "confidential" because they are both attorneys...You know, as if he were an attorney working FOR THE PALINS instead of the Investigator working for the State of Alaska...the job he was contracted to do.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  What part of "waiver of confidentiality" does Mr. Daniel not understand?  Not to mention, almost EVERY legal document can be called a "product of lawyers!"  The report itself is the product of a lawyer, yet he released it!

So, I'll let you know how THAT bit of attempted bullshit secrecy develops.

Back to the Governor's response to the APOC letter...let's discuss those "Alaska Statutes" they are trying to use to justify keeping Todd's discounts confidential.  They are...I kid you not...part of the Alaska Statutes establishing Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA)!!!

No...I'm NOT kidding!

Title 43. Revenue and Taxation

Chapter 90. Alaska Gasline Inducement Act

AS 43.90.150. Proprietary Information and Trade Secrets.

AS 43.90.220. Records, Reports, Conditions, and Audit Requirements.

If you read these, there is absolutely NOTHING that applies to anything other than AGIA.  To me, this looks like a "Hail Mary" pass by Mr. Van Flein and the Governor.  

As Sean Cockerham reported, the APOC decided to investigate this at the meeting today.  (They politely let me know right after my testimony...that was asking them to please investigate this!)  We'll see what APOC finds. Also, for those of you who may not know, APOC generally DOES NOT do investigations unless there is a complaint involved.  This is significant.

Of course, my day didn't end at the APOC Meeting.  I testified at the Assembly Chambers tonight in favor of Ordinance 64...but THAT will have to wait until tomorrow.

The Chief of Backlash: Smear campaign against Andree McLeod **UPDATE 2**

by: Celtic Diva

Mon May 11, 2009 at 08:40:27 AM AKDT

On April 22, 2009, Governor Palin's Chief of Staff Backlash, Mike Nizich made public something of which a number of us were already well-aware...that the Palin Administration wanted action taken against those private citizens who were attempting to hold her accountable for her unethical behavior:

I hope that the publicity-seekers will face a backlash from Alaskans who have a sense of fair play and proportion."

Some of us who have already experienced a measure of retaliation were curious what form Mr. Nizich's "backlash" would take.

We didn't have long to wait.

The last week of April brought a unique development:  As a direct result of testimony given by Andree McLeod during the public comment portion of the Alaska Public Offices Commission meeting, a letter of inquiry was sent to Governor Sarah Palin asking pointed questions about her Public Offices Financial Disclosure statement for 2009.

This was not the result of a complaint.  This was not the result of any required protocol stemming from a citizen-initiated action. This was a government watchdog agency hearing a citizen's testimony and FINDING THE QUESTIONS SO CREDIBLE the agency ACTED ON ITS OWN.

So what happened mere days after this letter reached the Governor?

Neanderthal radio talk-show host Eddie Burke was once again zapped by the electrodes directly linked to the Palin Administration.  Eddie's rap completely changed from his daily barrage against all of us ethics complaint-filer types to a laser-focused attack on Andree McLeod.  Suddenly, Eddie is claiming to file a document he incorrectly calls a FOIA to see all of Ms. McLeod's email to the State of Alaska.  

Of course, "coincidentally," all of the Palin-bot blogs followed lock-step with EXACTLY THE SAME "STORIES" on Andree McLeod.

So who knows why this past weekend Mr. Nizich and his partner-in-unethical-behavior Annette Kreitzer decided to openly pass PRIVATE EMAILS to ADN's gossip rag Alaska Ear that were sent to them by Andree McLeod. Perhaps he got impatient waiting for Eddie Burke to figure out what a records request is and then write and send an intelligible one.

But the Ear's Sheila Toomey obediently did the Administration's bidding by making fun of Ms. McLeod's email, which expressed concern (even through a little humor) about the inappropriate attire she saw displayed in some Alaska State offices.  Of course, Ms. Toomey neglected to include what she, Nizich and Kreitzer all knew...the context of those emails.

I mean after all, Toomey's own favorite saying is "the truth is so limiting."

If you do a simple Google search on "Andree McLeod," you discover that her former position with the Murkowski Administration (where Nizich and Kreitzer also served) was on the Alaska Workforce Investment Board, Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development.  See that part of the title that says "Workforce Development?"  Part of the job in that agency is to help people become employable and learn APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR IN WORKPLACE SETTINGS.  As a former 15-year federal employee, I also know that April (when Ms. McLeod was in the state offices) is the time of year when all the new summer-hire and STEP (Student Educational Employment Program)employees come on-board with ALL government agencies, state and federal. With them comes all of their youthful inexperience and (often) inappropriate attire.

I completely understand why Ms. McLeod wrote the emails...had I witnessed this recently in federal offices THAT INTERACT WITH THE PUBLIC, I would have done exactly the same thing despite the fact that I no longer work there.  I also find it hilarious that on the Conservative websites, folks are saying the same thing.

I SO look forward to what Mr. Nizich has in store for us next!  Considering he seems to perfectly exemplify the total divorce Governor Palin has experienced from ethics, I'm sure his next attempt at "backlash" will be quite newsworthy!

*******************************UPDATE WITH A COMMENT***********************

Can you imagine if Senator Begich's or President Obama's Chief of Staff forwarded an email that dealt with government business from a private citizen...to a gossip columnist in order to ridicule the sender??

How long would that person still have a job, do ya think?

**********************UPDATE--EMAIL WITH ADN AND SHEILA TOOMEY*****************************

I sent an email to Mark Dent (Alaska Newsreader), David Hulen and Pat Dougherty (editors of the ADN) which said:

I think that if Begich or Obama did the same thing, you guys would definitely be writing about it.

How convenient!  ROFLMAO!

Morning summary--stories I'm working on, upcoming events and stories you should read

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 08:39:29 AM AKDT

-- The REAL Stimulus story in the works -- Senator Begich is helping Alaska's businesses access those federal dollars for the good of Alaska's economy.

-- IMPORTANT story on Mudflats today -- While the pollock trawlers can merrily toss as much king salmon bycatch over the side as they want this year, the Yukon's rural subsistence fisherfolk now have severe limits as to the number of kings they can keep.  AKM has the story and comments from Yukon residents as to the impact on their already struggling economy.

--  Don't forget, Eric Croft's fundraiser is tonight at the Snow City Cafe.

Eric Croft and Jane Angvik

Of Governors and Gifts--this week's APOC meeting

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:31:51 AM AKDT

There is LOTS more Palin news going on out there than you realize!

BREAKING: Sondra Tompkins on KTUU Channel 2 tonight at 5:00 PM

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 14:14:49 PM AKDT

Please watch and spread the word!

P.S.  I am struggling with this @#$%^^&* blog today

I keep losing posts.

I'm on my way to the Alaska Public Offices Commission meeting...with tape recorder and camera.

And a list of questions about the "legal defense fund"...

I'll write about it all later...I hope!